Money; Supreme Court

As follow up to my two last posts, Gov Otter didn't appoint Clive Strong to the Supreme Court. He appointed Warren Jones, an insurance defense lawyer. Of the four, I guess he'd be the most pro-business, which seems to fit with Otter's general philosophy.

Next Supreme Court Justice? The applicants aren't in, but I'd give it high odds that whoever is it will be female. White female, most likely, since there are so few minority females practicing law in Idaho. Whiteaho.

Regarding my post about government budgets increasing with all the tax revenue, the Ada County Commissioners have a Readers Opinion in the Statesman. They point out that they are limited by state law to a 3% increase per year, and seem to say that they'll simply reduce the levy to keep within the limit. Thus, even if your Ada County property was assessed 20% higher than last year, you would not see that much increase.

Where's the Money Going?

Kathleen Kreller has an article in Sunday's Statesman about property tax valuations. The thrust of article is about how property gets valued by the Assessor, and whether you can do anything about it. Which is fine as far as it goes, but I think it's kind of missing the real story.

The real story is, where's all that money going? If the market value jumps up the tax assessment, then more money is flowing to the taxing entity. The schools get so many mils, the cemetery, the police, the library, the mosquito district, etcetera, all get a tiny slice of each property tax dollar. Let's say $10 for every $100,000 of assessed value. So, if my assessed value goes up 50%, as it has in many areas, taxes go from $10 to $15, assuming the mils stay the same.

I live in Kuna, so let's assume the tax base for the Kuna library went overall by 20%, so if the mils stay the same, the library gets 20% more money. This makes me wonder if the library experienced a 20% increase in expenses, or whether it just gets more money to spend. Does a mosquito district have higher expenses when more people live in the area?

I've seen the argument that our growth, which fuels the rising property values, is causing government increased expense. Example; Kuna is trying to expand its sewage treatment ability so more folks can move here. Well, why do existing residents have to pay for growth? Can't the developers, who all seem to make pretty good money, pay for it and pass it along to the people moving in?

Such projects are probably too big and complicated to make developers pay for, I guess. But, after the land is developed, and the new residents are paying the same property taxes, isn't the government still collecting more money per capita than before? Say we have a given level of service per capita, maybe 1 police officer for every 100 residents. Then growth occurs and property values shoot up, and we hire more cops. Well if the ratio is still 1 to 100, that should be affordable based on the pre-growth formula. There will be more cops, but more people paying for them. If you also add a 20% property value increase, government still gets its 20% increase.

Have the mills been adjusted down? If not, where's the extra money going? Are budgets increasing relative to population, or in excess of it? I am not a property tax expert, just a property tax payer, so I may be missing something, but these are the issues I'd like to see Ms. investigate and write about.

And Our Next Supreme Court Justice Is ....

Clive Strong. I don't have any inside info, I just think he is an obvious choice.

With the recent water curtailment order, water law is going to be a huge issue for the state. There is no more emotional issue than water to the Magic Valley farmers who are having it cut off, leaving a crop already planted to wither in the field. There will be litigation. Strong is, well, strong in water law. He's been intimately involved with the Snake River Basin Adjudication, and the Supremes will be dealing with these issues, no doubt.

Also, per the State Bar attorney roster, candidate Clive James Strong is a Deputy Attorney General. Interestingly, already working at the Idaho Supreme Court is a James Clive Strong. I guess that's probably father and son, and it's doubtful that the relationship will have any effect on the Governor's choice, but it's a fun coincidence. I suppose with the State's nepotism rules, Strong the younger will have to move on. Maybe AG Wasden will hire him.

Put That In Your Pipe and Smoke It

Julie's riposte to Popkey's "Grant doesn't listen" article* is up. Julie notes that Popkey didn't name any Dem source, and she posts an effective reply to the article.

Adam G opines that Dem long knives are coming out early in order to clear the way for Rand Lewis. Without knowing who Popkey talked to, this is a leap too far. It's more likely that the Rs Popkey talked to are trying to hobble Grant, and Popkey is helping them.

Even though many Rs didn't support Sali in the 2006 election, much of that was residual hard feelings from the R primary. Now that Sali's in: 1) he hasn't completely, earth-shatteringly embarrassed the Idaho R party, which seems to be what it would take for Idaho Rs to reject a sitting R congressman, and 2) Idaho Rs are getting used to Sali, he's made noises about getting along with Simpson, so let bygones be bygones. In other words, expect Idaho Rs to coalesce around Sali.

Thus, it makes sense that Rs would lob a preemptive strike toward the Dem candidate who almost beat Sali, in order to take him out early. Rand Lewis may be a fine candidate, but he's an unknown, whereas Grant has proven that he is a strong candidate for the district. No doubt Grant learned much in his first campaign; he will be a stronger candidate the second time around.

*I'd link to the article, but it's not listed on the Popkey page on the Statesman's website, nor does it appear on the Opinion page. It's probably there, somewhere, but if they're making it that hard to find, I guess they don't want it linked to.

Kudos To AG Wasden

And to Donna Jones and Ben Ysursa. Seems Gov Otter didn't want to formalize the state policy re high water mark land in exchange for a greenbelt easement because the greenbelt doesn't allow horses. Besty Russell has a more cogent explanation here. Wasden moved to formalize the policy, Jones and Ysursa voted with him, Luna and Otter opposed.

On a motion from Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, the board voted 3-2 to approve the new policy, with Jones and Secretary of State Ben Ysursa backing Wasden’s motion and Luna and Otter dissenting. Otter, still steamed about the lack of horseback access to his neighborhood Greenbelt, said the path stretches for 800 feet along the river at his ranch.

A horsepath along the greenbelt is an interesting idea, I'll admit. Maybe horses on one side, typical uses on the other. Either way, I'm glad the Land Board didn't accede to the request of developers, which started this issue.

Wedding Dresses: A Survey

I often hear or read a quote from some woman saying that she hopes her daughter or granddaughter will wear her wedding dress. Perhaps this is a way to justify the expense for a dress that will be worn once.

My question: have any of you, or your wives, worn an heirloom wedding dress, passed down from a family member? Or, have any of your daughters worn their mothers' or grandmothers' wedding dress?

Bonus question: Once it become clear that the dress will not be worn, what have you done with it? Let it hang in the closet? Donate it? Further bonus: how long did it take to get to this point?

Cell Phone Salesman

This is pretty cool. h/t Andrew Sullivan.
+

GLBTQ, er, CCCSI

I ran across some pix of Boise's, um, here we go, Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transexual, Questioning (is transgender in there somewhere?) parade, taken June 9, 2007.

Hope you enjoy the pix by Phydeaux460, who took lots of great images over the weekend.

I'm kind of amused by the groups included in the headline. Questioning? I'm fine with that, but at some point doesn't the bubble stop expanding? Questioning? I've got to question that. Curious? Confused? Conflicted? Sexually insecure?

Targeting Idiots

Betsy Russell warns us that Idaho law enforcement is going to start targeting aggressive driving. She says

Officers will be going after drivers who speed, drive too fast for conditions, follow too closely, fail to yield right-of-way, pass stop signs and disregard signals. They’ll also target seat belt violators. Now you know.

To which I reply, great idea, but I'm deeply skeptical. I commute from Kuna into Boise daily, and I frequently see Boise and Idaho State Police working the area. Of course, I can't tell what a driver is being stopped for, but usually the police officer has been radar-gunning motorists, so it's probably for speeding.

What I see ALL THE TIME are cops ignoring following too closely, tailgating. I see cops being tailgated, I see cops tailgating, I see cops driving in traffic with cars tailgating other cars all around them.

I follow the 2 second rule. Pick a point. When the car ahead of you passes it, start counting, one thousand one, one thousand two. If you pass the point before you get to two, you're too close. It also works on other cars. Thus, I can say with conviction that I see cops ignore tailgating ALL THE TIME. When cars are zipping along at 65 mph and not separated by even one car length, that's following too closely. I see it ALL THE TIME. I'm guessing that around 50% of cars are following too closely in my daily commute.

Tailgating is a problem because it leads to wrecks. If the person ahead slows down suddenly, for whatever reason, a tailgater won't have time to slow and an accident happens, blocking traffic for hours. Or, a person being tailgated can get angry and a road rage incident occurs. I see that frequently as well.

I drive a sedan in a sea of SUVs and pickups. These vehicles, the pickups especially, are tall, and that puts their headlights pretty much shining directly into my rear view mirror, and of course then into my eyes. When they're 5 feet behind me it is really annoying.

So targeting aggressive driving would be great; there'll be no shortage of offenders. But, I'm not sure the police can really see cars following too closely. They don't seem to. BTW, it'd also be nice if the ITD would use those huge electronic bill boards to tell people not to follow too closely, and to use the 2 second rule.

State Level Blogs

In a comment to a previous post, a doctoral student in media and public affairs at Louisiana State University asked for help completing a survey about the effect of blogs on state politics. You see a summary of her research ideas here.

She is asking us bloggers to take a survey to help her research, and she has created a blog that will track this research as it becomes available.

So, please help her out by circulating this info, and by taking the survey.

Supreme Court Justice

I sat in on the interview of Sen Bart Davis for one of the Idaho Supreme Court vacancies. 6 members of the judicial council asked Davis about one question each. The room had 14 spectators, which included Dan Popkey and Shawna Gamache from the Statesman, and 5 law clerks.

Popkey and Gamache sat at the back and typed away on laptops that linked into the Court's wireless network. That had been set up in advance.

I didn't think Davis interviewed so swell, though I didn't see any others and can't compare. He said some things that kind of raised my eyebrows. He said it would be good for the Court to have a member with political influence in the legislature, since the Court's budget is set by the legislature.

He was asked what he thought about the system for electing/reappointing judges, and he ended up saying he didn't know what was best.

He was asked by so few folks from outside the Boise area applied. 16 from Treasure Valley, 2 from eastern Idaho, and 1 from McCall. Davis responded by complaining that the previous Councils and Gov gave short shrift to areas outside of Boise, and folks elsewhere have become "disenheartened" and aren't applying.

The interview lasted a little more than a half hour, mostly because of Davis' somewhat rambling answers. At one point he acknowledged that and said, "Okay, I'll shut up now." Never a good sign in an interview. Interviews run through tomorrow.

Update: I remembered that Davis also said that when he was elected to the legislature, he thought talk radio had all the right answers. He said he later found that not to be true.

Later Update: The Statesman reports something that slipped by me. Gamache quotes Davis responding to a question about being beholden to a special interest group as a result of being in the legislature.

"I don't believe that there are groups and associations that feel that they have co-opted Bart Davis," Davis said. "I do not feel beholden to any particular group or organization."

OMG. He's talking about himself in the third person. Does he think he's Bob Dole?

Pyrrhic Victory?

The ruling in State v. Yzaguirre was recently announced. In it the Idaho Supreme Court did what it often does; it split the baby.

State v. Yzaguirre concerned the Ada County Commissioners going into closed executive session. The Idaho Attorney General challenged this action as violating the Idaho open meeting law. All meetings must be open to the public, unless an exception applies. The Court ruled in favor of the County’s argument that an attorney does not need to be present when officials use a “litigation exception” to go into executive session. The Court also ruled in the State’s favor, saying that the Commissioners broke the law by not making written minutes of the meeting. A recording wasn’t enough. So, a split.

Ada County’s attorney, Patrick Furey, has an opinion in the Statesman that implies that the County won hands down, and he decries the way the Statesman has reported the issue. Former commissioner, and a defendant in the lawsuit, Judy Peavey-Derr accused the Statesman of yellow journalism, and the other commissioners made similar improvident statements. They may get a chance to eat those words.

The case went to the Supreme Court on a motion for judgment on the pleadings after the State won in a lower court.

The district court granted the State’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that I.C. § 67-2345(1)(f) applies only when a governing body is meeting with its legal counsel, and that the audio recording failed to satisfy the requirement in I.C. § 67-2345(1) that the vote to enter executive session be “recorded in the minutes.”

A judgment on the pleadings means that the court decides the case based on what the parties allege. They assume that the non-moving party’s (here, the County) pleadings are correct, then decide the case on that. There is no development of the facts before the motion

So, the County had a partial win based on its allegations. The funny thing about allegations is, sometimes they’re wrong. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the district court for further proceedings. If Attorney General Wasden chooses, the State can litigate the case and try to develop facts that will lead to a different outcome.

If the AG proceeds, it will almost certainly lead to the Commissioners being placed under oath and questioned about what did happen in the closed meeting. Remember, the Commissioners met in a closed meeting with Boise Councilman Vern Bisterfeldt over a housing development issue. At the time the City and County were disagreeing, and a lawsuit could have resulted. (Thus, the litigation exception.) So this closed door meeting discussed a controversial housing development and included the potential opponent.

A third issue could also lead to a different outcome. The law at issue allows the litigation exception when litigation is pending (it wasn’t) or “where there is a general public awareness of probable litigation.” Whether such a general public awareness existed has not yet been determined. If not, the County loses. The Supreme Court described the situation:

In the executive session, the Commissioners and Councilman Bisterfeldt discussed relations between Boise City and Ada County which had become strained over the issue of a potential subdivision approval in the county and the impact of county development on the cost of city services. The meeting did not relate to pending litigation, but the Commissioners claim that the topics discussed were the subject of probable future litigation.

The problem for the Commissioners is that the matter hadn’t been reported much, if at all, and it’s very doubtful that there was a “general public awareness.” If this gets litigated, this looks like a loser for the County.

I wonder if the Commissioners really want to testify about this. I wonder if they think it’s a good use of taxpayer money to continue to pay the private, not county, attorney to defend a $450 fine. This case is not the unqualified win Furey would have you think it is, and it is far from over.

God loves you. Some restrictions apply.

Bryan Fischer is praising the Twin Falls Western Days Committee's decision to disallow a float in their parade. The Southern Idaho Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center wanted to enter a float, but were denied.

Story in the Statesman, but I can't find a link. On the IVA site, Fischer has posted a press release. Here's a snip.

Bryan Fischer, executive director of the Idaho Values Alliance, said the Committee made exactly the right decision. “The parade organizers are to be commended for recognizing that promoting the normalization of homosexual behavior is never right for any community that believes in the family as the cornerstone of a healthy society.”

Fischer went on, “Including a gay pride float would send the signal that homosexual behavior is the moral equivalent of heterosexual behavior, and the organizers decided correctly that’s not a message they wanted to send. It’s terrific to see a community stand up against the tidal wave of political correctness that’s sweeping over our culture with regard to human sexuality. Let’s hope that parade organizers all across America will follow their example.”

It's clear that the Statesman pretty much just ran with that, but also called the SIGLBTCC for a quote.

God loves you. Some restrictions apply. These are Idaho Values, per Fischer.

Let The Purge Begin

The Statesman reports:

Idaho Republicans have voted to close their primary elections to people not registered with the party.

The always reasonable Rod Beck (of rodbeckistan)says

Beck said the closed primary was needed to weed out those who were not true Republicans. He declined to name any lawmakers.

Weed out those who aren't true Republicans. Drive them to the Dem Party, I guess.

Chuck Oxley, Idaho Democratic Party spokesman says

"This is further evidence that the far right wing has taken control of the Idaho Republican Party," Oxley said in a statement. "Fairly soon, I think, mainstream Republicans are going to wake up and find themselves in an ideological abyss."

This will be fun to watch play out.

Community College

Perhaps someone knows the answer to this question about the new community college. Will tuition be higher for residents of counties other than Canyon and Ada ? If an Emmett resident enrolls, will he or she pay higher fees, since Gem County property owners aren't paying part of the cost of the college?

Ada County residents are already subsidizing - to an extent - residents of surrounding counties who work in Ada County. Ada County residents pay a highway district fee to support the Ada County Highway District (called HDR on the registration). Folks that live in other counties and work in Boise don't pay that fee, but do use the roads. I'm okay with that, but I do wish those same folks had to meet Ada County vehicle emission standards.

Andrew Speaker, Selfish Twit?

This guy is going to give lawyers a bad name. He gets tuburculosis and is told not to fly but does anyway. His story is that he wasn't instructed not to fly to Europe, per se. But, once in Europe when he was told in no uncertain terms not to fly, well,

Speaker said he and his wife were "scared out of our minds" at the prospect of being indefinitely placed in an Italian hospital and dying there.

So his response is to place all those folks on the airline at risk?

Not real bright for a personal injury lawyer. I can smell the "negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress" lawsuits even now. Let's see, could he have chartered a private flight home? How about making arrangements to fly with appropriate precautions, like buying the seats around him and wearing a protective mask? How about working with his new father-in-law:

Speaker's new father-in-law, Robert C. Cooksey, is a CDC microbiologist whose specialty is TB and other bacteria.

Seems like dad-in-law ought to have been able to work something out, short of exposing an entire plane to TB. And the flight was half way around the world, not just a one or two hour deal.

Although he's apologizing now, he didn't sound very repentant at first.

"I'm a very well-educated, successful, intelligent person," he told the newspaper. "This is insane to me that I have an armed guard outside my door when I've cooperated with everything other than the whole solitary-confinement-in-Italy thing."

The case also calls into question just how secure our borders are, when we can't keep out a known TB carrier that we're trying to keep out.

Baseball Team

Now that Fred Thompson has joined the fray for President, 11 white men in dark suits and white shirts are running for the Republican nomination, enough to make a baseball team. Unfortunatly, as a baseball team they're doomed. No lefties, no switch hitters, several flip-floppers, almost none have their eye on the ball, or are on the ball at all, and the only thing they can connect with are softballs.

Some are pitching to the base, others are striking out, fans are booing them. Luckily for them, it's still in the early innings and they've got time to rally before the playoffs.

Jeez, with this silly string of sports metaphors, I feel like a real pundit.

Update: I know, 9 guys on a baseball team, 11 on a football team. But, if you count a designated hitter and a relief pitcher, you're at 11 for baseball.

Larry LaRocco

Thanks to all for participating in the live blog. I don't know about you, but I've very seldom had an opportunity to ask a senatorial candidate a direct question. Maybe once, perhaps twice.

It is courageous of Larry LaRocco (or any politician) to submit to questions such as he did, especially in real time, unscripted. I appreciate a candidate showing respect to the netroots by taking time to answer questions.

Thanks to those who posted questions, and who visited to read the back and forth. Kudos to Larry for his courage, and to Julie for setting it up.

I'm looking forward to the next two live-blogging sessions.

Alan

Message from Larry

I am very happy to spend some time with you this evening sharing views on a wide array of issues.

I have spent part of the day reflecting on the true meaning of Memorial Day. We end up the month of May 2007 with almost 120 American deaths in Iraq.

I don't know how exactly to propose this - but I think we should have a few moments of inactivity, silence and reflection on the sacrifices of our brave men and women in uniform serving us today....and those that have gone before them.

I think of the 117 soldiers that died in May so far and the many more that have been wounded. I'm sitting at my desk in Boise knowing that most of America grieves as well, but in a large sense the grieving is local and personal with the families and loved ones of the fallen. Our nation is waging war but not all of us are making sacrifices.

As I sit here waiting for our exchange to begin, I am angry at George Bush for rushing us into this war and for mis-understanding the realities of the situation on the ground in Iraq. His delusional policies have left our reputation around the world in tatters and he has jepoardized the viability of our military infrastructure to fight in other theaters of war. Importantly, George Bush has squandered opportunities to unite our country after 9/11.

As a former US Army military intelligence officer I am very upset at the President's inability to face some hard realities in this war: his policies have failed us and he should set a new course of action.

The recent escalation is not the answer.

I have always tried to interact with Idaho voters and constituents. In 1982, I took a job for approximately one week in each of the 19 counties of the First Congressional District. This approach allowed me to interact with people of all walks of life. I learned a great deal. I loved the town meetings I held when I served in the Congress in the early '90s. In my last statewide campaign I shook 22,209 hands across Idaho to learn what was on the minds of Idahoans. It paid off. I learned a great deal by meeting people where they worked, lived and recreated.

Tonight and in subsequent live blog sessions I hope to continue to learn from you and to share my thoughts on how we can solve some problems in Idaho and in our country.

Many thanks. Larry

Larry LaRocco will blog here live at 8 p.m.

The live blog session with U.S. Senate candidate Larry LaRocco is just a few minutes away. Thanks to IdaBlue for hosting this session, the first of three Larry will be doing on Idaho and national blogs this week and next. Tonight’s session will focus on the war in Iraq and other issues of interest to military personnel, veterans, and their families.

Larry will make an introductory post at 8 p.m. Mountain, and our host Alan will ask the first question after that. To ask Larry a question, click below his post on the comments link. You will need to give your name and include a valid email address.

Please try to keep questions brief and to the point so Larry can answer as many as possible. If you’ve had a chance to ask a question, please give others a turn, too, before posting another question. The session will run one hour, ending at 9 p.m. Mountain/8 p.m. Pacific.

This live blog is intended as an opportunity for citizens to communicate their questions and concerns to Larry, and for Larry to tell us where he stands on major issues facing our nation. Commercial spam and malicious comments will be deleted.